“An organism that lives from and in another organism (the host), obtaining food from it and often causing it harm”, says one of the various dictionary definitions available. I propose: there are more parasites between heaven and earth than would identify our eyes, or recognize our vain philosophy.
The excellent homonymous Oscar-winning film portrays aspects of a family that lives in a mostly parasitic way: they live “in” another family – this one with “more nutrients” – which, in time, also becomes dependent on that first family (in reciprocal parasitism). Until they find a third character, also living in a parasitic mode, in the basement of this house where these complex dynamics take place. Each one is in search of maintenance of their own survival, until the parasitic bond is threatened, and chaos sets in.
Under analysis, there are important social aspects at stake – for instance, financial needs -, but undoubtedly psychic dynamics, inter and intra ones, of individuals and groups. The psychic dynamics are the ones that will be briefly approached in this text, which will be perhaps of particular interest to therapists who work with families and couples, but also in individual practices, once the most difficult parasitism to be recognized, seems to be the one occurring unconsciously in one’s own private psyche.
Parasitic modes of living and being exist in all levels of life and society. That is to say that the ‘outside world’ that we see – such as in this brilliant movie – may be the practical expression of inner parasitic mental and emotional forces. Ultimately, one’s own psyche may foster parasitic modes of living – even within oneself and one’s psychic instances – be they conscious or not.
There are many scenarios in which the parasitic dynamic may settle in while mirroring inner functioning modes: professional relationships, affective relationships, one’s own relationship with the others in general, as well as with the world itself.
Our relationship with nature can be highly parasitic: I take from it what I need, I give nothing back – neither care nor repair – thus seriously damaging it. The human species seems to have lived in this way for many centuries and generations. Awareness of this relationship, which arises from the visible damage done, seems to be awakening, even if late.
Some politicians or other governmental posts can establish parasitic relationships with the government and with the resources they receive: they suck the money and the benefits, and do not give anything in return, be it to a country or an institution – neither projects, nor work, nor consistent participation in the construction and modification of the national political scenario, or that of an institution. Here too, there is serious damage being done.
Other professional relationships as described above may (quite often) happen in a more personal level: people housed in their post, in their function, in their career, earning their wages and carrying out the minimum necessary motion, sometimes even simulating work, with very little actual contribution or expansion – either of themselves, or again, of the place they ‘inhabit’ (country, house or institution).
By reducing the spectrum of these lenses, we may find parasitic relationships in individual professions, in houses and in affective relationships: we ‘lodge’ in the other, with little or no development of our potential, and with little exchange with the outside world.
There are couples in which one of the pair may be characterized as living in a parasitic mode – they suck money, affection, housing: little or nothing is given in return, except the repetition of their own needs. At times wives or husbands who depend exclusively on the other’s money and resources spend their time only enjoying their own subsidized life. Sometimes this is harmful to the other, other times it is by common agreement – bearing the illusion of control over the one who is parasitized (as in relationships of allowed financial/emotional dependence).
But there are also situations in which someone, even alone, parasites themselves in his/her own life: for instance, in the house where they live, without caring (for) nor repairing it, which naturally will lead to deterioration. Ultimately, the house here is a metaphor for their own mind (and their own parasitic relationship with their psyche).
Every so often it is difficult to see or recognize a parasitic relationship, as occasionally they are subtle. However, it is even more difficult to find these parasitic parts in ourselves, in our lives: parts of ourselves that settle in certain situations, only depending and receiving, waiting for what comes from outside – from luck, “from fate”, or simply from the other, without autonomy, without movement, without transformation, without growth. Nearly inevitably, only an analytical process will be able to reveal it and to work it through, with the participation of the analyst’s mind as an active host to this particular analytical situation.
Naturally, it is good to clarify, a certain level of dependence and need always seem to coexist in all relationships (professional, personal, educational). This text tries to shed light on more critical situations, in which this (parasitism) would be essentially the core mechanism in place, therefore, will be to some important degree limiting and restrictive.
Monarchs, exclusively, seem to have a certain authorized parasitic role in societies (although not surprisingly they have been diminishing). They are kept by their community, as in the United Kingdom, but in some way they return to their people a sort of cultivated dream, maintaining their admiration, their adoration for royal subjects, the king, the queen, princes and princesses, which may be the incarnated unconscious wishes of some. Although, it is also known, not everyone agrees with this sort of hierarchy.
Figueiredo, an author of Psychoanalysis, in his General Theory of Care speaks of righteous sharing or reciprocal care. Giving and receiving; caring and being cared for: reciprocal dynamics that, states the author, would be conceived from very early moments in one’s life.
More precisely, since one is still a baby or a small child, in the exchanges with the mother with whom, already by then, the baby or small child would have an important role in the exchange: being able to offer something of him/herself and not only passively receive the milk or food, but also placing themselves, their small actions, their gratitude, their affection, which are then received and valued, and not disregarded for their smallness, rejected or satirized, which would be a form of rejection.
This, according to Figueiredo, would become the embryonic mode of concern for the other, and later a matter of ethical stamp in the life of the adult person: the care that was/is necessary to me, is also necessary to the other, for the preservation of ourselves and of the other, and of what is ours – our heritage (private, national and cultural). The opposite would be “pure consumerism” – in the beginning, the baby only sucks the milk, while there is no affection exchanged and his small acts (as his love) are not valued or received. Later on, this may become a consumption mode: I buy, I benefit, I give little or nothing in exchange.
In the extreme, it would mean destruction: careless actions leading to the collapse of bonds, of heritage, of life itself and of the future. As we see happening in the film, and, very unfortunately, we see happening in life, in many dimensions.
9 Title of the 2019 movie by Bong Joon-ho (Korea), Oscar winning in 2020.
10 The opinions and views in this text are my own.
12 Some people really seem to take themselves for kings or queens quite easily.
13 Figueiredo, L. C. (2012), As Diversas Faces do Cuidar: Novos Ensaios de Psicanálise Contemporânea [The Multiple Faces of Caring: New Essays on Contemporary Psychoanalysis], São Paulo: Editora Escuta [Escuta Publishers], 2nd. edition.
